Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Synergizing Decision Making and Trajectory Planning Using Two-Stage Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single two-stage optimization can simultaneously decide which lane to drive in and generate the corresponding trajectory, replacing the usual separate decision and planning modules.

desk verdict Solid engineering combination of MIP decisions and ADMM-CiLQR, but Eq. (17)'s discretization is wrong as written and the lane-decision semantics are inconsistent; the paper needs major revision before its claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18974 v1 pith:UVM6DVHT submitted 2024-11-28 cs.RO math.OC

Wenru Liu , Haichao Liu , Lei Zheng , Zhenmin Huang , Jun Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROmath.OC MSC 68T4090C11
keywords two-stageoptimizationdecisionmakingtrajectoryplanningautonomousdrivingmixed-integerprogramminglanechangenonlinearlocalplanner
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that decision making and trajectory planning for an autonomous vehicle belong in one optimization problem, and that the resulting mixed-integer nonlinear program can be solved by splitting it into two stages that share the same objective. The first stage solves a mixed-integer program over a linear vehicle model to pick the lane and speed profile; the second stage uses those choices as the reference and generates a collision-free trajectory with a realistic nonlinear vehicle model. The paper reports that this combined planner improves both safety and traveling efficiency in multi-lane scenarios compared with planners that track a fixed lane and with a conventional decision-then-planning pipeline. If the approach holds, it offers a way to make local driving decisions and motion execution consistent with each other.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the binary lane-selection variable $b_\alpha(\tau)\in\{0,1\}$ for $\alpha\in\{-1,0,1\}$ (left change, keep, right change), with the constraint $\sum_\alpha b_\alpha(\tau)=1$ for every time step. The target lane for decision $\alpha$ is defined as $\sigma+\alpha$, where $\sigma$ is the lane at the start of the prediction horizon, and the costs for position tracking and traveling efficiency in the integrated objective reference that target lane's center line and speed limit. This makes the lane choice and the trajectory share one cost function. The two-stage optimization then separates the problem: stage one solves a mixed-integer program with a linear vehicle model and soft collision costs, and stage two takes the resulting reference lane and velocity as initialization for a nonlinear trajectory optimization with hard collision avoidance, using an ADMM-based constrained iterative LQR solver.

What would settle it

Run the planner with a scenario where the initially chosen lane is blocked and the only free lane is two lanes away, or where after one lane change the vehicle must change again in the same direction within the same horizon; the cost terms reference lanes $\sigma-1,\sigma,\sigma+1$ only, so no feasible decision represents the second consecutive change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the discrete choice of reference lane and the continuous trajectory that tracks it can be optimized within a single integrated cost function, and that the resulting mixed-integer nonlinear program can be decomposed into two tractable stages without losing coherence between them. In the first stage, the vehicle model is replaced by a linear double integrator and collision avoidance is softened into cost penalties, yielding a mixed-integer program that branch-and-bound can solve for an optimal lane-selection sequence. In the second stage, that sequence fixes the reference lane and reference velocity, and an ADMM-based constrained iterative LQR generates the trajectory using the nonlinear bicycle model and strict ellipse-shaped collision avoidance. The paper's experiments compare this planner against fixed-lane trajectory planners and two baseline pipelines in four scenarios and in closed-loop simulation, reporting lower obstacle and collision counts, greater longitudinal progress, and higher average speed.

Load-bearing premise

The binary lane decision chooses a target lane as the current lane plus one of $-1,0,1$, so all reference lanes are fixed relative to the lane at the start of the horizon; this means the decision space cannot represent moving two lanes away from that initial lane, and 'lane keeping' still refers to the original lane even after the vehicle has left it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A local planner can be built as one constrained optimization problem rather than a hand-tuned decision module followed by a trajectory planner.
  • Lane choices are re-evaluated at each receding-horizon step, so the vehicle adapts to changing traffic by actively seeking lanes with fewer obstacles or higher speed limits.
  • The two-stage split keeps the mixed-integer part small enough to solve quickly, while the second stage preserves dynamic feasibility through the high-fidelity vehicle model.
  • Because both stages minimize the same integrated objective, the decisions handed to the trajectory planner are already consistent with what the trajectory layer can execute.
  • In the reported scenarios, the planner avoids collisions and hazardous close approaches that the baseline pipelines produce, and it maintains higher average velocity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition could be transferred to other discrete-continuous planning problems, such as merging-gap choice or roundabout sequencing, whenever a small set of discrete modes is coupled to a continuous trajectory.
  • The target-lane definition $\sigma+\alpha$ fixes the decision space relative to the initial lane, so the planner cannot represent two lane changes in the same direction within one horizon; a receding-horizon implementation may mask this by resetting $\sigma$ each cycle, but the claim of an 'optimal decision sequence' over one horizon is limited to single lane changes.
  • The paper treats surrounding-vehicle predictions as given input and lists this as a limitation; a testable extension is to close the loop with a learned predictor and check whether the safety gains survive prediction error.
  • The closed-loop comparison pits the planner against a finite-state-machine-plus-PID baseline; isolating the benefit of joint optimization would require a stronger rule-based decision layer that still tracks a reference lane.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a local planner for autonomous driving that jointly formulates discrete lane-selection decisions and continuous trajectory planning as a nonlinear mixed-integer program. Because solving that program directly is intractable, the authors decompose it into two stages: a first-stage MIP with a linear double-integrator model and soft collision costs that produces an optimal lane-decision and reference-velocity sequence, and a second-stage constrained iLQR (ADMM-CiLQR) problem with the nonlinear bicycle model and hard collision-avoidance constraints. The method is evaluated in four open-loop multi-lane scenarios and in closed-loop CARLA simulations against FSM+PID and IDP baselines, with reported improvements in safety, traveling efficiency, and computation time. The central claim is that the two-stage optimization yields coherent decisions and trajectories that outperform fixed-lane and separate-pipeline planners.

Significance. If the formulation is corrected and the experiments reproduce, the paper makes a useful contribution: it is a clean, interpretable instantiation of joint decision and trajectory optimization, with a plausible decomposition that avoids solving a monolithic nonconvex MIP. The ablation structure is thoughtful, and the closed-loop CARLA evaluation against two baselines is a strength because it tests the planner in a receding-horizon setting rather than only in open loop. The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs; moreover, the two issues below concern the correctness of the first-stage decision model and the meaning of the decision variable itself, so they are load-bearing for the paper's claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A.1, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is not the zero-order hold discretization of the continuous-time system (14)-(15). For the state (px, py, vx, vy) and input (ax, ay), the exact zero-order hold matrices are Ad = [[1, 0, dt, 0], [0, 1, 0, dt], [0, 0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 0, 1]] and Bd = [[dt^2/2, 0], [0, dt^2/2], [dt, 0], [0, dt]]. As printed in Eq. (17), the second row of Ad has no entry in the py column, so py(tau+1) = dt * vy(tau), meaning lateral position does not accumulate, and Bd has no dt factors, so vx(tau+1) = vx(tau) + ax(tau), which is dimensionally inconsistent for dt = 0.5 s. Because the cost terms (5)-(9) and (21)-(28) and all decision outputs depend on px, py, vx, and vy, the first-stage MIP (34) computes decisions for a dynamical model different from the one stated. The second stage then treats those decisions as fixed references, so the coherence argument inherits this error. Please correct the discretization matrices, and if the implementation uses the correct zero-order hold form, state that explicitly and confirm that the reported Scenario 1-4 results were produced with the corrected model.
  2. [Section III-B, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The binary decision variable b_alpha is defined relative to sigma, the lane occupied by the EV at the start of the planning horizon, so the target lane for decision alpha is always sigma + alpha. As a result, b_0 is not 'lane keeping' in the current lane after a lane change; it means tracking the lane occupied at tau = 0. The decision space therefore cannot represent two lane changes away from the initial lane within one horizon, and the semantics of the output decision sequence becomes ambiguous after a maneuver. This is precisely what happens in Scenario 4 and Fig. 6, where the described overtaking maneuver is expressed as left, back-to-original, and left again relative to the initial lane, rather than as decisions in the vehicle's current lane. The paper does not flag this as a limitation in Section VI, which lists only prediction as a limitation. Please redefine the decision variable with respect to the current lane (for example, by introducing a lane-offset state into the optimization) and revisit Scenario 4 under that definition, or explicitly restrict and state the maneuver space covered by the formulation.
  3. [Section V-C, Ablation Study 2] Ablation Study 2 is described as using the same first-stage MIP without the high-fidelity vehicle model in the second stage, and the paper states that this ablation is solved with Gurobi. That comparison does not isolate the value of the high-fidelity model: replacing the ADMM-CiLQR second stage with the first-stage MIP also removes the hard collision-avoidance constraints and the nonlinear vehicle dynamics simultaneously. The collisions reported in Table II for Ablation Study 2 can therefore be caused by the absence of hard safety constraints rather than by the absence of the high-fidelity model. Please redesign the ablation so that the only changed component is the vehicle model (for example, run the same second-stage solver with a linearized or simplified model), or reinterpret the ablation as a joint test of both the model and the safety constraints and adjust the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (21)-(22) and (25)-(26)] The soft collision cost is printed as an additive term w_d * (Delta d)^2 + eps^2 rather than as a fraction w_d / ((Delta d)^2 + eps^2). The text says eps prevents the denominator from being zero, so a fraction is intended; please fix the typesetting.
  2. [Section IV-B.1, Eq. (35)] The text says the second-stage objective is 'the same as (12a)', but Eq. (35) uses new weights q1, q2, q3, r1, r2 with no stated relation to the weights w_tr,x, w_tr,y, w_velo, w_delta, w_a in Section III-B. Please state whether these weights are identical, renamed, or separately tuned.
  3. [Section V-A] The notation is inconsistent: the formulation uses horizon T, while the experiments use N = 10 and N = 50 for the two stages. Please unify the notation and state explicitly that both stages use the same 5 s prediction horizon.
  4. [Eqs. (40)-(41)] The safety index divides by vx, which is zero at the initial standstill in the CARLA simulation. Please specify how the index is evaluated when vx = 0 and whether the reported box plots are affected by this boundary case.
  5. [Section IV-A.2, Eq. (18)] The kinematic-consistency parameter rho appears in constraint (18) and is important for giving the first-stage solution forward-motion behavior, but its value is not reported in the simulation settings. Please provide the value and, ideally, a small sensitivity study.
  6. [Section V-D] The claims of 'significant' improvement in safety and efficiency are based on single deterministic CARLA runs without multiple seeds or statistical significance testing. Presenting run-to-run variation or at least stating that the results are single-run would make the strength of the claim proportionate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-stage planner is an optimization formulation with hand-tuned costs, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

I traced the claimed derivation chain: the original nonlinear program (12) is decomposed into a first-stage MIP (34) and a second-stage trajectory optimization (39). The binary decision variables b in the first stage are free optimization variables; they are not fitted to the second-stage outputs or defined in terms of the final trajectory. The reference lane and reference velocity for the second stage are derived from the first-stage optimal decisions by construction, but this is a sequential-pipeline design, not a statistical fit or a self-justifying prediction. The objective weights in (5)-(10), (21)-(28), and (35) are manually specified constants, not learned parameters. The self-citations to the authors' prior work ([43], [44], [45]) provide a bicycle model and an ADMM-based iLQR solver; these are used as tools, not as uniqueness theorems or as unverified premises that force the paper's conclusions. The TSO concept is attributed to external work [42]. The potential Eq. (17) zero-order-hold discretization error noted in the skeptic headline is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not a circular-reasoning concern: even if the discretization is wrong, the first-stage decisions are still the output of an optimization over the stated (albeit erroneous) model, not a renaming of the inputs. Because no load-bearing step in the paper reduces to its own inputs by definition or by self-citation, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-tuned objective weights, an assumed linear-to-nonlinear model coherence, and the fixed-lane semantics of the decision variable. The paper does not report numerical values for the weights or safety margins, and the target-lane definition relative to a fixed initial lane is a conceptual constraint on the decision space.

free parameters (5)
  • Objective weights w_tr,x, w_tr,y, w_velo, w_delta, w_a
    Hand-chosen weighting coefficients in the integrated objective (Eqs. (5), (7), (10)) that determine the trade-off between tracking, efficiency, and comfort; values are not reported.
  • First-stage soft-cost weights w_v-lon, w_d-lon, w_v-lat, w_d-lat
    Hand-chosen weights in the LV and NV interaction costs (Eqs. (21), (25)) that shape the decision; values not reported.
  • Kinematic consistency gain rho
    Constant in constraint (18) approximating kinematic feasibility for the linear model; value not reported.
  • Big-M constant M and epsilon
    Used in the big-M reformulation (30) to (33); values not reported.
  • Ellipse safety margins l_a, l_b
    Size of the ellipse approximating each SV in collision avoidance constraint (38), increased with velocity; values not specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Discretionary driving with a known global path but no pre-defined reference lane
    Section III, Assumption 1; the planner only handles lane-level decisions.
  • domain assumption Lane order and fixed lane IDs
    Assumption 2 in Section III; leftmost is lane 1, IDs increase to the right.
  • domain assumption Full access to lane information and predicted states of surrounding vehicles
    Assumption 4; the planner treats SV predictions as inputs, an acknowledged limitation in the conclusion.
  • domain assumption Bicycle model assumptions: flat surface, rigid body, linear tire-slip relation
    Section III-A; standard kinematic and dynamic assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-stage linear model with constraint (18) adequately approximates the high-fidelity model for decision making
    Section IV, the proxy claim; if the proxy is poor, the informed initialization could mislead the second stage.
  • domain assumption The MIP solution's reference lane and velocity can be tracked by the second-stage optimizer
    Section IV-B; coherence between stages assumes trackability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synergizing Decision Making and Trajectory Planning Using Two-Stage Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVM6DVHT

@misc{pith2026241118974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synergizing Decision Making and Trajectory Planning Using Two-Stage Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVM6DVHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18974}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a local planner that synergizes the decision making and trajectory planning modules towards autonomous driving. The decision making and trajectory planning tasks are jointly formulated as a nonlinear programming problem with an integrated objective function. However, integrating the discrete decision variables into the continuous trajectory optimization leads to a mixed-integer programming (MIP) problem with inherent nonlinearity and nonconvexity. To address the challenge in solving the problem, the original problem is decomposed into two sub-stages, and a two-stage optimization (TSO) based approach is presented to ensure the coherence in outcomes for the two stages. The optimization problem in the first stage determines the optimal decision sequence that acts as an informed initialization. With the outputs from the first stage, the second stage necessitates the use of a high-fidelity vehicle model and strict enforcement of the collision avoidance constraints as part of the trajectory planning problem. We evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed planner across diverse multi-lane scenarios. The results demonstrate that the proposed planner simultaneously generates a sequence of optimal decisions and the corresponding trajectory that significantly improves driving performance in terms of driving safety and traveling efficiency as compared to alternative methods. Additionally, we implement the closed-loop simulation in CARLA, and the results showcase the effectiveness of the proposed planner to adapt to changing driving situations with high computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ego vehicle (EV) in red is driving in a multi-lane scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed planner for autonomous driving. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trajectory and longitudinal velocity of the EV in Scenario 1. Due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectory and longitudinal velocity of the EV in Scenario 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory and longitudinal velocity of the EV in Scenario 4. The EV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation results on the multi-lane urban driving scenarios in CARLA. Six keyframes are selected to demonstrate the optimal lane-selection decisions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of driving performance in terms of safety, efficiency, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Integrating Decision-Making Into Differentiable Optimization Guided Learning for End-to-End Planning of Autonomous Vehicles

    cs.RO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An end-to-end planner that jointly learns prediction, lane-selection decisions, and trajectory optimization with a differentiable optimizer reports lower collision rates and higher progress than imitation-based baseli...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Milestones in autonomous driving and intelligent vehicles: Survey of surveys,

    L. Chen, Y . Li, C. Huang, B. Li, Y . Xing, D. Tian, L. Li, Z. Hu, X. Na, Z. Li et al., “Milestones in autonomous driving and intelligent vehicles: Survey of surveys,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1046–1056, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Is it safe to drive? An overview of factors, metrics, and datasets for driveability assessment in autonomous driving,

    J. Guo, U. Kurup, and M. Shah, “Is it safe to drive? An overview of factors, metrics, and datasets for driveability assessment in autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 3135–3151, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A review of motion planning for highway autonomous driving,

    L. Claussmann, M. Revilloud, D. Gruyer, and S. Glaser, “A review of motion planning for highway autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1826–1848, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,

    S. Teng, X. Hu, P. Deng, B. Li, Y . Li, Y . Ai, D. Yang, L. Li, X. Zhe, F. Zhu et al., “Motion planning for autonomous driving: The state of the art and future perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Ensuring safety of learning-based motion planners using control barrier functions,

    X. Wang, “Ensuring safety of learning-based motion planners using control barrier functions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4773–4780, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Security-based resilient triggered output feedback lane keeping control for human– machine cooperative steering intelligent heavy truck under denial-of- service attacks,

    F. Ding, H. Shan, X. Han, C. Jiang, C. Peng, and J. Liu, “Security-based resilient triggered output feedback lane keeping control for human– machine cooperative steering intelligent heavy truck under denial-of- service attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 2264–2276, 2022. 14

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A lidar- openstreetmap matching method for vehicle global position initialization based on boundary directional feature extraction,

    Z. Li, Y . Wang, R. Zhang, F. Ding, C. Wei, and J.-G. Lu, “A lidar- openstreetmap matching method for vehicle global position initialization based on boundary directional feature extraction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Real-time parallel trajectory optimization with spatiotemporal safety constraints for autonomous driving in congested traffic,

    L. Zheng, R. Yang, Z. Peng, H. Liu, M. Y . Wang, and J. Ma, “Real-time parallel trajectory optimization with spatiotemporal safety constraints for autonomous driving in congested traffic,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1186–1193

    work page 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Interaction-aware decision-making for automated vehicles using social value orientation,

    L. Crosato, H. P. Shum, E. S. Ho, and C. Wei, “Interaction-aware decision-making for automated vehicles using social value orientation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1339–1349, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cooperative decision making of connected automated vehicles at multi-lane merging zone: A coalitional game approach,

    P. Hang, C. Lv, C. Huang, Y . Xing, and Z. Hu, “Cooperative decision making of connected automated vehicles at multi-lane merging zone: A coalitional game approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3829–3841, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Differentiable integrated motion prediction and planning with learnable cost function for autonomous driving,

    Z. Huang, H. Liu, J. Wu, and C. Lv, “Differentiable integrated motion prediction and planning with learnable cost function for autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,

    E. Yurtsever, J. Lambert, A. Carballo, and K. Takeda, “A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 58 443–58 469, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Jointly learnable behavior and trajectory planning for self-driving vehicles,

    A. Sadat, M. Ren, A. Pokrovsky, Y .-C. Lin, E. Yumer, and R. Urtasun, “Jointly learnable behavior and trajectory planning for self-driving vehicles,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3949–3956

    2019

  6. [14]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang et al. , “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

    2023

  7. [15]

    A universal cooperative decision- making framework for connected autonomous vehicles with generic road topologies,

    Z. Huang, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “A universal cooperative decision- making framework for connected autonomous vehicles with generic road topologies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04968 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    On the computational complexity of integer programming problems,

    R. Kannan and C. L. Monma, “On the computational complexity of integer programming problems,” in Proceedings of Optimization and Operations Research. Springer, 1978, pp. 161–172

    1978

  9. [17]

    A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles,

    B. Paden, M. ˇC´ap, S. Z. Yong, D. Yershov, and E. Frazzoli, “A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–55, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles,

    C. Hubmann, M. Becker, D. Althoff, D. Lenz, and C. Stiller, “Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles,” in Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1671–1678

    2017

  11. [19]

    Chance-aware lane change with high-level model predictive control through curriculum reinforcement learning,

    Y . Wang, Y . Li, Z. Peng, H. Ghazzai, and J. Ma, “Chance-aware lane change with high-level model predictive control through curriculum reinforcement learning,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 205–14 211

    2024

  12. [20]

    MPDM: Multipolicy decision-making in dynamic, uncertain environments for autonomous driving,

    A. G. Cunningham, E. Galceran, R. M. Eustice, and E. Olson, “MPDM: Multipolicy decision-making in dynamic, uncertain environments for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1670–1677

    2015

  13. [21]

    Baidu apollo EM motion planner,

    H. Fan, F. Zhu, C. Liu, L. Zhang, L. Zhuang, D. Li, W. Zhu, J. Hu, H. Li, and Q. Kong, “Baidu apollo EM motion planner,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.08048, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Search- based optimal motion planning for automated driving,

    Z. Ajanovic, B. Lacevic, B. Shyrokau, M. Stolz, and M. Horn, “Search- based optimal motion planning for automated driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2018, pp. 4523–4530

    2018

  15. [23]

    Efficient sampling-based motion planning for on-road autonomous driving,

    L. Ma, J. Xue, K. Kawabata, J. Zhu, C. Ma, and N. Zheng, “Efficient sampling-based motion planning for on-road autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1961–1976, 2015

    1961

  16. [24]

    Autonomous driving motion plan- ning with constrained iterative LQR,

    J. Chen, W. Zhan, and M. Tomizuka, “Autonomous driving motion plan- ning with constrained iterative LQR,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 244–254, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    A unified framework integrating decision making and trajectory planning based on spatio-temporal voxels for highway autonomous driving,

    T. Zhang, W. Song, M. Fu, Y . Yang, X. Tian, and M. Wang, “A unified framework integrating decision making and trajectory planning based on spatio-temporal voxels for highway autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 3...

    2021

  18. [26]

    End- to-end learning for self-driving cars,

    M. Bojarski, D. Del Testa, D. Dworakowski, B. Firner, B. Flepp, P. Goyal, L. D. Jackel, M. Monfort, U. Muller, J. Zhang et al. , “End- to-end learning for self-driving cars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    End- to-end driving via conditional imitation learning,

    F. Codevilla, M. M ¨uller, A. L´opez, V . Koltun, and A. Dosovitskiy, “End- to-end driving via conditional imitation learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4693–4700

    2018

  20. [28]

    ChauffeurNet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst,

    M. Bansal, A. Krizhevsky, and A. Ogale, “ChauffeurNet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03079, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Computation of solution spaces for optimization-based trajectory planning,

    L. Sch ¨afer, S. Manzinger, and M. Althoff, “Computation of solution spaces for optimization-based trajectory planning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 216–231, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Continuous decision making for on-road autonomous driving under uncertain and interactive environments,

    J. Chen, C. Tang, L. Xin, S. E. Li, and M. Tomizuka, “Continuous decision making for on-road autonomous driving under uncertain and interactive environments,” in Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. IEEE, 2018, pp. 1651–1658

    2018

  23. [31]

    A generic driving strategy for urban environments,

    C. Hubmann, M. Aeberhard, and C. Stiller, “A generic driving strategy for urban environments,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1010–1016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Predictive maneuver planning for an autonomous vehicle in public highway traffic,

    Q. Wang, B. Ayalew, and T. Weiskircher, “Predictive maneuver planning for an autonomous vehicle in public highway traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1303–1315, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Path planning for autonomous vehicles using model predictive control,

    C. Liu, S. Lee, S. Varnhagen, and H. E. Tseng, “Path planning for autonomous vehicles using model predictive control,” in Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium . IEEE, 2017, pp. 174–179

    2017

  26. [34]

    Branch and bound methods,

    S. Boyd and J. Mattingley, “Branch and bound methods,” Notes for EE364b, Stanford University , vol. 2006, p. 07, 2007

    2006

  27. [35]

    Optimal trajectory planning for autonomous driving integrating logical constraints: An MIQP perspective,

    X. Qian, F. Altch ´e, P. Bender, C. Stiller, and A. de La Fortelle, “Optimal trajectory planning for autonomous driving integrating logical constraints: An MIQP perspective,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems . IEEE, 2016, pp. 205–210

    2016

  28. [36]

    Optimal behavior planning for au- tonomous driving: A generic mixed-integer formulation,

    K. Esterle, T. Kessler, and A. Knoll, “Optimal behavior planning for au- tonomous driving: A generic mixed-integer formulation,” in Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1914–1921

    2020

  29. [37]

    Infusing reachability-based safety into planning and control for multi-agent interactions,

    X. Wang, K. Leung, and M. Pavone, “Infusing reachability-based safety into planning and control for multi-agent interactions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2020, pp. 6252–6259

    2020

  30. [38]

    A MPC combined decision making and trajectory planning for autonomous vehicle collision avoid- ance,

    M. Ammour, R. Orjuela, and M. Basset, “A MPC combined decision making and trajectory planning for autonomous vehicle collision avoid- ance,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 24 805–24 817, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    An integrated framework of decision making and motion planning for autonomous vehicles considering social behaviors,

    P. Hang, C. Lv, C. Huang, J. Cai, Z. Hu, and Y . Xing, “An integrated framework of decision making and motion planning for autonomous vehicles considering social behaviors,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14 458–14 469, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Hierarchical game-theoretic planning for autonomous vehicles,

    J. F. Fisac, E. Bronstein, E. Stefansson, D. Sadigh, S. S. Sastry, and A. D. Dragan, “Hierarchical game-theoretic planning for autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2019, pp. 9590–9596

    2019

  33. [41]

    Receding horizon planning with rule hierarchies for autonomous vehi- cles,

    S. Veer, K. Leung, R. K. Cosner, Y . Chen, P. Karkus, and M. Pavone, “Receding horizon planning with rule hierarchies for autonomous vehi- cles,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1507–1513

    2023

  34. [42]

    A two- stage optimization-based motion planner for safe urban driving,

    F. Eiras, M. Hawasly, S. V . Albrecht, and S. Ramamoorthy, “A two- stage optimization-based motion planner for safe urban driving,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 822–834, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Decentralized iLQR for cooperative trajectory planning of connected autonomous vehicles via dual consensus admm,

    Z. Huang, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Decentralized iLQR for cooperative trajectory planning of connected autonomous vehicles via dual consensus admm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04386 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Improved consen- sus ADMM for cooperative motion planning of large-scale connected autonomous vehicles with limited communication,

    H. Liu, Z. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y . Li, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Improved consen- sus ADMM for cooperative motion planning of large-scale connected autonomous vehicles with limited communication,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Alternat- ing direction method of multipliers for constrained iterative LQR in autonomous driving,

    J. Ma, Z. Cheng, X. Zhang, M. Tomizuka, and T. H. Lee, “Alternat- ing direction method of multipliers for constrained iterative LQR in autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 23 031–23 042, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Potential iLQR: A potential- minimizing controller for planning multi-agent interactive trajectories,

    T. Kavuncu, A. Yaraneri, and N. Mehr, “Potential iLQR: A potential- minimizing controller for planning multi-agent interactive trajectories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04926 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Human-like deci- sion making for autonomous driving: A noncooperative game theoretic approach,

    P. Hang, C. Lv, Y . Xing, C. Huang, and Z. Hu, “Human-like deci- sion making for autonomous driving: A noncooperative game theoretic approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2076–2087, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    A. H. Land and A. G. Doig, An automatic method for solving discrete programming problems. Springer, 2010. 15

    2010

  41. [49]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

  42. [50]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

  43. [51]

    An integrated decision and motion planning framework for automated driving on highway,

    P. Wu, F. Gao, X. Tang, and K. Li, “An integrated decision and motion planning framework for automated driving on highway,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 15 574– 15 584, 2023

    2023

  44. [2023]

    Available: https://www.gurobi.com

    [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.